Welcome Rolling Stones
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
September 15th, 2008
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/
Hey, this is the guy that convinced me that I should invest in cardboard games. In the future, I'll be riding my horse over to my buddy's house so we can play Settlers...
For those of you who have been paying attention, it has been the Republican party who has been in charge for the last 8 years. I won't be voting for them again.
-
Rich Hefferan
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
Wow, we haven't even counted the bodies and the dems are already claiming the U.S. is ruined and the republicans are solely to blame.
Last I checked, even as a minority they represented over 40% of congress. Now they represent around 50%. "Don't look at that man behind the curtain."
-
Welcome Rolling Stones
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
Shushnik wrote: Wow, we haven't even counted the bodies and the dems are already claiming the U.S. is ruined and the republicans are solely to blame.
Paint it however you like. The article doesn't mention 'bodies'. The facts are what they are.
And if you think 40% beats 60%, I'll ride my horse to your place for a game...
-
Rich Hefferan
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
49xjohn wrote: Shushnik wrote: Wow, we haven't even counted the bodies and the dems are already claiming the U.S. is ruined and the republicans are solely to blame. Paint it however you like. The article doesn't mention 'bodies'. The facts are what they are. And if you think 40% beats 60%, I'll ride my horse to your place for a game...
"We haven't even counted the bodies" is a phrase. Meaning we don't know the extent of this financial collapse. The economists are crapping themselves, but their predictions remind me of a joke.
"Why was economics invented? To make meteorology look good."
-
Patrick Twitchell
United States
Ayer
Massachusetts
-
Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. That is solely the responsibility of the Republican party.
We can't continue to fund wars, grow government programs, defense, etc. and still continue with tax cuts without exponentially running up our deficit. Anyone can realize that a system like that cannot sustain itself for long.
-
Tim Scott
United States
West Fargo
North Dakota
-
Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. That is solely the responsibility of the Republican party.
We can't continue to fund wars, grow government programs, defense, etc. and still continue with tax cuts without exponentially running up our deficit. Anyone can realize that a system like that cannot sustain itself for long.
Tax cuts favoring the rich. That's one phrase / line of thinking that just chops my hide. When the rich pay the most in taxes, and there's a tax cut, who do you think the money is going to go back to? I'm not rich, but I do have a grasp of elementary math.
If I pay in $10, and you pay in $100, but then the rate gets cut so that we each pay 10% less, I'd $1 back and you'd get $10 back. That's not favoring the rich. That's favoring the guy that paid in MORE.
I don't understand why people are against tax cuts. If you think they suck (which I gather from your post), have you considered donating more of your money to Uncle Sam? There's nothing, other than common sense, that's limiting you from contributing more of your hard earned money come April 14th. Me, I trust myself to direct that hard-earned cash more wisely than some faceless bureaucrat.
-
Mark Mahaffey
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
-
SAM:
"Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, 'It's time for the rich to pay their fair share,' I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to because that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying."
--Aaron Sorkin
"THE FALL'S GONNA KILL YOU" (The West Wing Season 2)
-
Welcome Rolling Stones
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
TScott wrote:
If I pay in $10, and you pay in $100, but then the rate gets cut so that we each pay 10% less, I'd $1 back and you'd get $10 back. That's not favoring the rich. That's favoring the guy that paid in MORE.
I'll give you points for math?
The Republican party will lower taxes for the richest folks in America, and the Democratic party will lower taxes for everyone else. Are you rich?
If anyone wants to call me on this premise, I challenge you to 'read my lips'
-
Rage is just love with more volume
United States
White Trash
Idaho
-
49xjohn wrote: TScott wrote:
If I pay in $10, and you pay in $100, but then the rate gets cut so that we each pay 10% less, I'd $1 back and you'd get $10 back. That's not favoring the rich. That's favoring the guy that paid in MORE.
I'll give you points for math? The Republican party will lower taxes for the richest folks in America, and the Democratic party will lower taxes for everyone else. Are you rich? If anyone wants to call me on this premise, I challenge you to 'read my lips'
If you want less of something you heavily tax it. If you want more of it you don't. Fuck politics... anyone who claims they don't "get" this simple a concept is merely waiting for his share of the rich person's pie to be handed over to him by the government. It'll be a long, long, long wait too... probably forever in fact.
Guess what? High taxes don't mean diddly to a person or company that is making money. They simply move their "place of business" to a nation with lower taxes. Fucking double-duh.
Of course a government could always close the border... not for those coming in, but to keep those high-earners here so the simpletons who think they are getting screwed can suckle on the teat of "big money". Of course, any government that tries to keep money from fleeing high taxes ends up broke... and devoid of humans who can produce enough excess to tax in the first place.
Only a dullard would imagine that a person intelligent enough to get rich to begin with would sit on their ass and let a government take their wealth away and buy votes with it.
-
nothing but static
New Zealand
Unspecified
-
DWTripp wrote:
Guess what? High taxes don't mean diddly to a person or company that is making money. They simply move their "place of business" to a nation with lower taxes. Fucking double-duh.
It's not really that simple. There are costs of moving and then there
is desire to move.
for example Larry Ellison owns anough of oracle to say where it is based
he also gets paid lots and lots.
He is still resident in california subject to FIT and not vanuatu or
the virgin islands which have no icome tax as far as I recall.
Being close to your market is better than being in a lower tax region.
Now if nevada offered a rebate on FIT I suspect more than a
few companies would move before the ink dried but that would
be because they still stay inside the US market.
Low tax countries tend to be a bit dodgy.
-
Zelvis 2012!
United States
-
James Kunstler ... I generally think it is maybe not a good idea to try to understand the dissection of the complex financial system from someone with a degree in Theatre.
-
Rolling bad dice in wargames since 1977
United States
Austin
Texas
-
All I know is that all successful producers factor in the cost of doing business into the price of their product. Taxes are a part of the cost. Whether a business stays here (to stay close to consumers) or goes somewhere else (to ease the burden of taxation, say), the prices of the goods it produces and services it provides have all the taxes it must pay to government factored into the price.
-
Tim Scott
United States
West Fargo
North Dakota
-
49xjohn wrote: TScott wrote:
If I pay in $10, and you pay in $100, but then the rate gets cut so that we each pay 10% less, I'd $1 back and you'd get $10 back. That's not favoring the rich. That's favoring the guy that paid in MORE.
I'll give you points for math? The Republican party will lower taxes for the richest folks in America, and the Democratic party will lower taxes for everyone else. Are you rich? If anyone wants to call me on this premise, I challenge you to 'read my lips'
In my original post, I already stated that I am not rich. As long as we are getting snarky, I challenge you to 'read my post'.
As far as the Dems lowering taxes for "everyone else": Do you realize that somewhere between 30-40% of Americans PAY NO TAXES WHATSOEVER? Under Obama's plan, which you apparently agree with, these people will get refunds. Meh? Isn't that a subsidy? Isn't that spending? I don't get it.
Do you also realize that the top 1% of wage earners carry 30% of the tax burden in this country? The top 5% pay 50% of all the taxes. If you are going to cut taxes, these are the folks that should benefit.
For all the bleating I hear from the Dems about "fairness", they sure are quiet when it comes to robbing Peter, John, and Chris to pay Paul.
-
Paul Kidd
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
-
DWTripp wrote: Guess what? High taxes don't mean diddly to a person or company that is making money. They simply move their "place of business" to a nation with lower taxes.
I see the point, but if you look at the field evidence it doesn't seem to happen. A friend of mine lives and and works in Silicon Valley - his company was bought out by Nokia, a company which was founded and continues to be based in Finland, a country with substantially higher taxes than the United States. I think there is just not sufficient evidence that companies or individuals will change countries just to achieve a lower tax rate. I think the main issue is what value society gets for the taxes it pays.
-
Patrick Twitchell
United States
Ayer
Massachusetts
-
DWTripp wrote: Only a dullard would imagine that a person intelligent enough to get rich to begin with...
Yes, if only that were all it takes to become rich...
It's true that rich pay more taxes, but that's how it's supposed to work with a progressive tax rate. Even so, they minimize their taxes to lower than what we (the not rich) would think, because they have financial planners and accountants who advise them how to move their money around and make transactions that lower their taxes, and legally so in most cases.
I don't hear Bill Gates complaining of being taxed too much. If anyone, I think he would be qualified to do so.
As for not wanting the government to decide how our money is spent, I can agree with that. However, we have a problem with a huge debt to repay and a falling dollar. How would you propose we correct this, without pawning it off on posterity? Taxes will never go away. We might as well have those who can afford to pay them pay the most. Taking away one million dollars from someone who makes $4 million will still leave them with PLENTY of money--certainly not unjust.
-
Mr. Chris
United States
Ohio
-
Does everyone understand that these wealthy people earned their money. It belongs to them. They didn't steal the money, it doesn't belong to you, me, or the guy down the street. Also, their money isn't in mattresses or buried in the backyard; it is out in banks and business helping you and me.
Rich people are not evil bastards - they are successful business people. They should be applauded for their work, not told, "You better pay more because you are successful." (I will state that some bastards are rich. But they would be bastards with or without the money.)
1.) Should people with big houses and/or lots of land be forced to provide homes for people who can't afford their own home? They have the space. People can live happily in one room apartments - why don't we force people to share their homes? Are you ready for your new housemates? (Hark! Somewhere a cry of "But that's completely different" is sounding out.) How is it any different from taking what was legally earned just because they have a lot of it?
2.) If I consider myself rich in spirit, should I be forced to go cheer up some unhappy people somewhere? After all, I have something and others don't - that's not fair.
One day I hope to be rich - oh yes I do hope. If/when that day arrives - I want all my money to stay with me. I don't want someone to take what I earned because I did a good job investing my money in successful business. That's penalizing my good choices - that's not fair.
-
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
-
The European nobility earned their money too: One could become a noble by distinguishing themselves in battle, or doing any other major service to the crown. After that, their children and grandchildren just inherited the land and rights their ancestors had earned. Some let their land fall into disarray, while others prospered. On average, they kept getting richer and powerful compared to the working serfs, if just because of the power of capital.
I guess that the french revolution was very unjust, since everything the nobility had was earned a few dozen generations before.
The inequality is nowhere near as brutal as in the time of the French Revolution, but the infinite perpetuation of capital gains leads to pretty much the same place, and that's a place we don't want to be in. Progressive taxation is a way to dampen this effect. There's other ways, like putting a higher tax pressure on property than income or having a large inheritance tax. Having the capital gains tax be lower than the income tax gets the opposite effect.
I'm all for rewarding hard work and innovative ideas, but I'm not so fond of rewarding being born in the right family.
-
Rich Hefferan
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
hibikir wrote: The European nobility earned their money too: One could become a noble by distinguishing themselves in battle, or doing any other major service to the crown. After that, their children and grandchildren just inherited the land and rights their ancestors had earned. Some let their land fall into disarray, while others prospered. On average, they kept getting richer and powerful compared to the working serfs, if just because of the power of capital.
I guess that the french revolution was very unjust, since everything the nobility had was earned a few dozen generations before.
The inequality is nowhere near as brutal as in the time of the French Revolution, but the infinite perpetuation of capital gains leads to pretty much the same place, and that's a place we don't want to be in. Progressive taxation is a way to dampen this effect. There's other ways, like putting a higher tax pressure on property than income or having a large inheritance tax. Having the capital gains tax be lower than the income tax gets the opposite effect.
I'm all for rewarding hard work and innovative ideas, but I'm not so fond of rewarding being born in the right family.
Come on, you know you secretly believe Paris Hilton deserves her fortune. Admit it! 
-
Mr. Chris
United States
Ohio
-
If we lived in "ye olde tymes," I might agree with your statement about static social classes. That was then, this is now.
Unlike your example, where the only way to get rich was at the point of a sword (or edge of a guillotine?), modern times allows ANYONE with a sound business plan or work ethic to achieve success.
On a practical note about inhertance tax: 4th and 5th generation family farms are being broken up becasue of the inheritance tax. These smaller farms can't support themselves and get sold to large farming conglomerates. But those farmers were probably too rich and those poor companies needed the extra land.
But don't let wealth pass from one generation to another. Don't let me ease my grandson's path through life. Don't let poor Americans save enough money to provide their families the financial security they worked so hard for. Cause all rich people have a huge money vault that holds their money (in gold coin form) and they swim in it every day.
Or is that "wealth" a family home, a family farm, a family business. a college fund, or (heaven forbid) a vacation get-away.
I'm not so fond of taking away your hard earned personal property just because someone decided that you have "too much." But hey, why stop there: Most Americans and Europeans are born with more assets than children born in poorer parts of the world - should we take things away from them?
"Sorry Bobby, I have to take away this book you were reading. It isn't fair to the children in (insert poorer region/nation here). We can't have you benefitting from the wealth your country has been building over the past centuries."
-
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
-
Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things.
Interestingly enough, Obama said that he wouldn't immediately lift these "Bush tax cuts" because it would damage an already fragile economy.
Evidently if the economy isn't fragile it's ok to damage it to buy some votes.
I found this tacit admission that the tax cuts helped the economy, but needed to be removed eventually anyway very illuminating.
-
Rich Hefferan
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
qzhdad wrote: Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. Interestingly enough, Obama said that he wouldn't immediately lift these "Bush tax cuts" because it would damage an already fragile economy. Evidently if the economy isn't fragile it's ok to damage it to buy some votes. I found this tacit admission that the tax cuts helped the economy, but needed to be removed eventually anyway very illuminating.
Can you point to where he said it, please? I'd be interested in reading that.
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
qzhdad wrote: Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. Interestingly enough, Obama said that he wouldn't immediately lift these "Bush tax cuts" because it would damage an already fragile economy. Evidently if the economy isn't fragile it's ok to damage it to buy some votes. I found this tacit admission that the tax cuts helped the economy, but needed to be removed eventually anyway very illuminating.
Or maybe, just maybe, fragile economies are damaged by different things from robust ones?
-
Pat R
United States
Peculiar
Missouri
-
Taxes: It all comes down to this. We live in a capitalist system. In order for us to succeed, we NEED to consume. Putting money in the hands of consumers is a good thing. 1 rich person consumes less than 100 less rich or poor people. Adding $100 to richy riches pocket won't help an Orage Juice manufacters much. Adding $1 to 100 people living hand to mouth, will. If Richy Rich owns the OJ plant, he earns more because he just sold 100 more cups of OJ. Can he see that far down the line? I doubt it. But he expects me to see that EVENTUALLY he will invest in 1 more job at his OJ plant because he has $100 right?
Oh well. It's very simplistic, but it's how I see this arguement. I would point out, this is how it's played out over time as well.
We need taxes. They pay for shit we as normal people can't afford. Roads, military, libraries, schools etc etc. I don't mind paying. All I ask is for my $ to go for real stuff and not pork BS. A graduated tax works best for the majority. Want it lower? Help reform how COngress spends the $ they get.
-
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
-
Shushnik wrote: qzhdad wrote: Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. Interestingly enough, Obama said that he wouldn't immediately lift these "Bush tax cuts" because it would damage an already fragile economy. Evidently if the economy isn't fragile it's ok to damage it to buy some votes. I found this tacit admission that the tax cuts helped the economy, but needed to be removed eventually anyway very illuminating. Can you point to where he said it, please? I'd be interested in reading that.
I'm going to cop out partially here. It was on NPR Morning Edition sometime last week, but I am not sure what day.
-
Rich Hefferan
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
qzhdad wrote: Shushnik wrote: qzhdad wrote: Desiderata wrote: Regardless of who's to blame for it, the tax cuts (favoring the rich), certainly aren't helping things. Interestingly enough, Obama said that he wouldn't immediately lift these "Bush tax cuts" because it would damage an already fragile economy. Evidently if the economy isn't fragile it's ok to damage it to buy some votes. I found this tacit admission that the tax cuts helped the economy, but needed to be removed eventually anyway very illuminating. Can you point to where he said it, please? I'd be interested in reading that. I'm going to cop out partially here. It was on NPR Morning Edition sometime last week, but I am not sure what day.
That's ok. Thanks anyway
-
|
|
